Search the Community

Subj. When using DTC screen, every enemy and friendly ground and aerial unit is shown on the map, despite the "Map Only" option is selected. The same happens with other similar options: "A/C Only", "Allies Only". Statics are hidden as they should be. The same happens in multiplayer too. Unit's options "Hidden on MFD" and "Hidden on Planner" don't affect visibility. One could argue that DTC screen is a sort of a planner rather than F10-map. I can't post a track, since there is another bug, but it is very easy to reproduce. Mission attached. Steps to reproduce: 1) Spawn in DTC-capable aircraft. 2) Open DTC. 3) Observe all units you are not supposed to in real time. This is very critical for certain servers and massive events. Right now, we effectively can't play the way we were intended to because of this bug. dtc-godeye.miz

After the latest update from today 19.06.2025 the campaign seems to be broken. Tried M01 today and the first observation was, that the parking spot of the own Aircraft was at an other parking spot, on the right side from the other figters. Second: The first Devil flight taxies to the runway, and are getting permission to take of, but they do not do. They just keep standing at the start of the runway. So after our flight arrives at the runway, it is blocked and the lead does not take off. I guess this is due to the update to the map, which was included in todays patch. Please have a look. I just bought the campaign and wanted to try the M01 a second time. thats why I know that the parking slot changed. Can not say anything to the other missions, as I did not try them jet at all. Thanks for looking into it Frank

Dear ED developers, I’ve been your fan since Lock On days and have enjoyed DCS for at least 8 years now. In the past year I’ve detected some strange behaviour on fox1 servers regarding Aim-7 performance. I’ve been more active in recent weeks and the issue seems too severe to be ignored. Being a professional analyst (and ex low-temperature physicist), I know that opinions and feelings count for nothing in these cases. After dedicating 30+ hours to solving this issue, I believe I’ve successfully identified the problem and see an immediate solution to mitigate it. Let us dive right into it using numbers and physical quantities from TacView, as well as known missile parameters thanks to dcs-lua-datamine github by Quaggles. The key date is 11.7.2024 - on this day, everything changed with the whole Aim-7 family. Despite my best efforts, I haven’t been able to collect Tacview files closer to this event, but I can demonstrate the change using one from 03/2023 in the “before” period and a more recent one from 2025 in the “after” period. When we compare Aim-7M performance before and after the change, it is both qualitatively and quantitatively different. I am using Tacview Advanced graphs and the metric of choice is total mechanical energy. Not only is the maximum energy vastly different, but also its time evolution (character). We know that Aim-7F and above are dual-stage. First, the booster lights up, delivering the strongest impulse. After that, the sustainer rocket motor kicks in, delivering the final bit of extra energy. In the before period (scenario A), the Aim-7M missile gets to its maximum energy only after the sustainer phase. However, since the change (scenario B), the missile reaches its maximum energy state already after the initial booster phase. Sustainer then merely preserves this energy for the duration of its burn. This is the qualitative change. There is also a quantitative change. New maximum energy is more than before. So not only does the missile reach higher energy faster, it can also preserve it in a superior way (see attachments). The following thing shouldn’t be considered a “proof” of any kind, merely a supportive argument. I formulated a question for ChatGPT and got an answer, that scenario A is much more realistic for the Aim-7 missile (see attachments). Now, for the actual proof. I was wondering for some time, what could possibly be responsible for such a dramatic change in missile energy management. With the background in physics, a few things immediately crossed my mind. Either the magnitude of the impulse of at least one of the rocket motors changed, or the delivery character of that impulse (its time evolution) or the missile’s mass (weight) itself. I went through the whole changelog since 03/2023 and curiously enough, found that on 11.7.2024 that’s precisely what changed - but for the E and E2 variants. See: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.6.57650/ Look for: “Weapons. AIM-7E/E2 mass decreased.” From that point on, it all started making sense. I discovered this brilliant guy’s Quaggles github, pulled the commit from 11.7.2024 and the earliest one before this date. Started comparing all Aim-7 variants before and after. Soon enough, I stumbled upon the culprit. Link for the latest commit before the change: https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/e57755713d8ae6b59ccf1831b089e3b33aee7633/_G/rockets/AIM-7MH.lua Link for the commit right at the change (11.7.2024): https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/da69a9f560550da346501f4056261e491ac4079a/_G/rockets/AIM-7MH.lua Let’s have a look at some of those missile parameters. Of course, I am not an ED developer and cannot possibly know what these parameters mean, right? There is no official documentation, so it could be air temperature. Well, yes and no. Thanks to your changelog, we do know that the mass of the E and E2 variants did change on 11.7.2024. When we compare the changes specifically in the E2 missile files, we find only 3 changes in all the parameter values. We know that the mass is supposed to change and we can see 3 updated parameters. Can we safely assume that these 3 parameters define the missile’s mass? For the sake of this report, let’s call them “index M”, “fm mass1” and “fm mass2” (see attachments). For your convenience, I have provided a table with all existing Aim-7 variants, changes of these 3 parameters in the aforementioned commits and verified that the parameter values have stayed the same right up to now. We can immediately see the problem: missile param 23.3.2024 11.7.2024 30.6.2025 Aim-7E2 index M 230 194 194 Aim-7E2 fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7E2 fm mass2 230 194 194 Aim-7E index M 230 206.4 206.4 Aim-7E fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7E fm mass2 230 206.4 206.4 Aim-7F index M 231 231 231 Aim-7F fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7F fm mass2 231 231 231 Aim-7MH index M 231 231 231 Aim-7MH fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7MH fm mass2 231 231 231 Aim-7P index M 231 231 231 Aim-7P fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7P fm mass2 231 231 231 Aim-7(M?) index M 231.1 231.1 231.1 Aim-7(M?) fm mass1 231.1 194 194 Aim-7(M?) fm mass2 231.1 231.1 231.1 First of all, before the change, for every missile, all 3 of these parameters were kept the same (only difference = 1 with E2 variant). After the change, only the E2 missile has equal values of the 3 params, all of the other missiles have 1 parameter different from the remaining two. The most dramatic difference is 37kg. Not only is the parameter different, but it is exactly the value present in the E2 variant (194). Is it possible that somehow, at some point, the E2 "fm mass1" value overspilled to the other variants? Commiting different versions of the code, copying the value of the params, etc.? I am 99% confident that this is not the change you'd intended to do. Because you did change the values for E2, but kept all 3 params the same. That appears to be the correct approach. It is my suspicion and hypothesis, that this one single parameter is directly responsible for the new buffed-up missile performance of the variants that shouldn't have been changed at all. There is one more supporting evidence for this. E and E2 variants should have different mass according to literature and also according to your changes. The difference should be about 6% (194 vs 206.4). There are more differences in missile params for these 2 missiles in the "seeker" and "autopilot" part and it was my hypothesis that these could be ignored when firing blind without a target lock. We tested it and arrived at an estimated difference in gained energy of 0.6% - this is nowhere near the perceived mass difference. In the "boost" and "march" parameters, they have the same impulse value. So the motors are the same, the impulse is the same, the resulting extra speed should be different by about 6% (p = m.v), but it's barely detectable (0.6% diff in energy) EDIT: I may be wrong at this point. After comparing missile speeds, the E vs E2 may actually have about 5% difference in speed, but it's hard to judge. The aircraft shot one missile at slightly higher initial speed. Combined with drag being dependent of speed etc. this creates a difference. And also the other extra missile parameters, in which these missiles differ, could play a role. Attached, you'll find what I believe to be proof that these missiles actually have the same mass for the purposes of energy after launch. Despite not having same mass in real life and also in the other 2 mass parameters. EDIT: hard to say. They appear too similar. This is all I can provide at this moment, I'm happy to talk more about this. I only have few key questions for you and would be delighted if you managed to answer them: 1. Can you please confirm, that you indeed observe the provided values of the parameters and that 1 ("fm mass1") is different from the other two in all but the E2 variant? 2. Can you please confirm if this was unintended and the idea indeed was, to keep all 3 parameters at same (updated) values? 3. If yes, am I right in assuming this could be fixed as easily as rewriting one parameter value for 5 missiles to match the remaining two parameter values? 4. And finally, if yes, could you please prioritize this in your future updates? If you've survived to the merge (the end of my post), thank you and congratulations. I wish you the very best of luck in improving and maintaining the game that we all love and enjoy so much. Best regards, Merrek

Lighting for the doppler hover indicator or the doppler nav system doesn't turn on. Yes I've turned on the 5.5v doppler lighting switch, the two rheostats in the doorway and the one behind the pilot/navigator's head. Tracks for cold start and hot start attached. Apologies to whomever watches the cold start track as I fail to start the engine a few times. It was dark. mi8_doppler_light.trk mi8_hotstart_doppler_light.trk

Since the very latest up date the left and right indications on the drift angle indications are reversed,so when indicator displays “left” of track you are actually to the right of your desired track,also pressing the button marked “left” adjacent drift angle indications cause “right” to be displayed in drift angle readout out and vice versa for the “right”.The forward and backward indications in the flight path window are also reversed,so with backwards displayed on the flight path window and say 12km set,when you actually start flying,instead of counting down to zero,it counts up from 12km.If you select forwards in the flight path display and enter say 12km ,when you start flying it counts down from 12 to zero even though forwards is selected.I am currently playing the “Oil Field” campaign which requires Doppler to be operating.Hope it can be fixed in the next update.

@MAESTR0 Not sure about other bases (haven't checked them yet) but Spang has the incorrect HAS model and can't fit A-10s and you can't set any of the ramp locations for AI A-10s to start from (glad we have a work around for player/client aicraft). They should use the same model as the hotel and india loop at Incirlik AB that A-10s can fit in. Links to see HASs at Spang: https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/293803/81st-fs-inactivation-announced/ https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2001013339/ https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/295077/crew-chiefs-keep-a-10s-soaring/ https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/295167/six-ship-a-10-formation-simulates-flying-to-aor/ https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/295493/a-10-arrival-and-departure/ https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000561572/

Fuel transfer from external tank works, but I can't enter fuel quantity on the KU (230 US Gal) !

Steps to follow: Enter into some instant F18 action in the Caucasus, specifically BVR 8 vs 8 Press the new DTC button before hitting Fly. Modify some parameters within the new cartridge, specifically these: -Add the AUTO 1 program one more flare. -Switch when detecting LAUNCH of Mig29 to AUTO1 Close the cartridge and then press Fly. Inside the aircraft configure all your avionics: -Load cartridge (ONLY press ALR67, you don't need to modify comunications this time) -Activate and set your EWR to AUTO mode. When the Mig29 launches a missile at you, your automatic program may be activated, but you may get a nice crash. Report information to DCS. This is very important. dcs.log-20250418-143721.zip LastMissionTrack.trk

Does someone have the same graphic issue with the RPG Infantry? The rocket is hovering in front of the Soldier. Short Video here: https://gyazo.com/3d6816e1f11439ac1ada746a9592faff

I've noticed for some time now on the A-10C II that the 3 rack laser guided M282 MPP APKWS on the BRU-42 3x LAU-131's on stations 5 and 8 fire, but the rockets never leave the pod, visually. So when you shoot them all it will still show a full load on the external view. Even as you are firing them it won't show one missing or however many you shoot. Thank you in advance! You guys kick ass, thank you for all of your hard work!

Hi everyone, A subsequent update has resulted in ships not firing their anti-ship missiles until their targets are detected by their own surface-search radars (which, ignoring atmospheric ducting (which isn't modelled in DCS), are limited to radar horizon, for most ships this is typically on the order of 20 nmi/~37 km, some ships are). Previously, attack unit/group would result in firings, so long as the target was within the weapon's maximum range. This means that ships with longer-ranged anti-ship weapons cannot take advantage of that longer range and put themselves within range of shorter weapons (which can include some gun systems). Sometimes ships will fire 1-2 missiles, but won't follow up until within detection range of their own surface-search radars, this is inconsistent however (possibly related to heavy timewarp usage). While the current set up is somewhat more realistic, ships don't have ESM systems modelled in DCS, the AI won't share targets they detect with each other (in the tracks below their are aircraft that can provide offboard targeting, both via ESM and/or surface-directed radar - targeting should be able to be provided via data link or voice), nor are satellite based targeting systems modelled (outside Given that ships do not feature ESM systems in DCS, the AI won't share targets they detect with each other (and in the tracks below there are aircraft capable of detecting ships at long-range, both via ESM and via surface-directed radars), nor are there any satellite-based targeting systems (such as Legenda), attack group was the only option available to take advantage of the long range of anti-ship missiles. Now there's no option whatsoever. 3M80_Range.trk P-500_Range.trk P-700_Range1.trk P-700_Range2.trk RGM-84D_Range.trk YJ-62_Range.trk YJ-83_Range.trk

Not much to say really, I am sure ED are werll aware the landing and aerobrake performance of the current jet are a long way from reality. If not just ask any SME to comment on it or watch Movers vids. Just would be nice if landing wasn't super-simplified, and the aerobrake wasn't so difficult to obtain/maintain. Mover has stated it should easily just hold a nose-high atitude with minimal backstick - currently need a LOT of backstick to get the nose up and maintained down to 100ish knots. The flight controls shouldn't stop working/lose a bunch of lift as soon as you touch the ground.

Silkworm missile is invincible against AIM-120B, C DCS 2.5.12 Silkworm invicible.trkTacview-20250211-203424-DCS-006 SiIkworm b.zip.acmi

The updates says that the player is now invulnerable during the IGLA attack. I just flew the mission, and sad to say I was NOT invulnerable! Took a heater to the Hornet and knocked out all of my electronics.

Hi, Playing the campaign (which remains great) and, unfortunately I have to let the 14th mission down. Doesn't work at all. After Sandy 62 get freelance order, she flies to WPT Carpet then just RTB to mother! In fact I do absolutely not understand what I am supposed to do. Where, how, speed, angel. No idea. I overfly the firt outpost, but did not get a F10 option immediatly. The option came later on. I overfly the second big before Carpet. No F10 menu either. Not clear. Sandy (which is far away) informs about the APC. OK I take it down. As she's away, I take the Trucks and the ZU-23 position too. After all of them are dead... nothing. Well surely a lot of triggers are broken. I skip it. More simple. Cheers. Dan DCS Stable 2.8.7.42718

As the title, if any aircraft is connected to Catapult 1 no F-14 can taxi up to and get directions to connect to catapult 2. I know this is a legacy of the og undersized Stennis model, where two F-14s wouldn't fit side by side without wing overlap and the risk of collsion on launch but given that this legacy issue is now a non-factor can we please amend the logic to consign this now needless restriction to the waste bin? As the CO of a multiplayer Tomcat squadron, this is providing needless nuisance in getting our Air Wing off the deck in a timely manner. Many thanks.

I did some investigating, after experiencing in various missions, AI flight members never finishing AAR, while the tanker is in orbit. I wasn't able to quickly reproduce in a simple mission, but I did notice something else (possible related to the aforementioned bug?): Perhaps intended behavior to simulate the slightly higher difficulty when air refueling in a turn (in which case: "hats off to ED" ), but during one of my missions, I noticed that it takes an AI F-16CM approximately double the time to refuel while in orbit, than it does in level flight. I tested it with two identical missions. Only in one of them, the tanker enters orbit (speeds, alt, fuel qty, distance to tanker, pilot skill ace - all identical) The level flight Viper: connect after ±50sec -> disconnect ±2mins later The orbit Viper: connect after ±50sec ->disconnect ±4mins later both miz and track files added (Fun fact: I tried the orbit version with a rookie pilot and it seemed topped off sooner than the ace pilot ) AI F-16 AAR level flight - 2min.trk AI F-16 AAR orbit - 4min.trk AI F-16 AAR level flight.miz AI F-16 AAR orbit.miz

Good evening, Is there a workaround or planned update for mission 10. Due to the latest update a fence is now up on the taxi way towards the runway. Still trying to navigate through it causes damage. Solution probably to go around but haven't tested if wingman will follow suit or not.

In the beginning of the training mission you're asked to press OSB 14 on the right MFCD to open the MAV page after turning on the EO power. Apparently this has been moved to the left MFCD (where it's visible and accessible) but because of this, the tutorial won't continue even after pressing the spacebar key multiple times. Pressing OSB14 on the right MFCD also does not continue the training.

nullAs of today and since the update nothing noticeable was detected. Conducted several tests and yet the same problem persists. Ai can still see you trough vegetation, at 30k feet 40nm or more. And ground ai still can see you trough vegetation kilometers away. nulloct 23 2024 (today) oct 06 2024 *kiowa shot down by flak Came here to report the experience so far. null nullnull forgot this one.

What is happening here? I was expecting the vehicle to drive rounded rectangles. But instead it seems to have a mind of its own. I truly hope ED can explain this behavior or fix it, because it is in the way of reliable vehicle movements. This is only the beginning, as i intent to hold and continue the traffic based on triggers, which seems even less reliable. task test.miznullnull

While in TWS mode and hovering the radar cursor over a System Target, it is correctly made a Cursor Target and the scan limits are correctly set to a 3-bar ±25° pattern centered on the target. However, when slewing away from the Cursor Target, scan limits are not restored. The same is true for a Bugged Target. This issue complicated workflow and pilot load in addition to being in conflict with the functionality described on page 243 of the DCS F-16C Early Access Guide by Eagle Dynamics. See the attached track file. tws_scan_limits_bug.trk

We had a SATAC match today where an AIM-120C was fired on a JF-17. JF-17 launches a PL-5. 120C switches from JF-17 to track PL-5. Not sure the RCS of a PL-5 should re-route a 120C.

The task of the test is to determine in which modes the FCR transmits information to the HSD page (A2A mode) Test conditions: One jet scanning and designating air targets and the other observes the situation on HSD page. Target consists of two jets. Result: - In RWS SAM mode: attack aircraft after designate does not see the targets on HSD page; observer aircraft sees only one target. - In TWS mode: attack aircraft sees only one of two (from FCR) target on HSD page which is designated by the FCR; observer aircraft sees only one target. Before today's patch: - In RWS SAM mode: attack aircraft after designate sees the targets on HSD page; observer aircraft sees targets. - In TWS mode: attack aircraft sees all targets (from FCR) on HSD page without designate ; observer aircraft sees all targets too. As you can see, this is a very significant change, if in the previous version everything was configured correctly, now there is a big error in the work of the FSR connection with the HSD and Link 16. Track

After these two radio calls it gets a little bit confusing. The radio messages were barely understandable. I manage to land, but the ingress call came after the contact ground. I think I did something wrong, but here the player should be guided a little more precisely about Frequency and what to do. 4:05:45.870 [PLAYER] Tusk 1-1, wilco. 4:05:36.870 [TONOPAH TTR - SILVERBOW] Tusk 1-1, Silverbow, contact Tower when 5 miles out. Thanks for your work! The campaigns is worth every penny. Needs only some little tweaks. But I thing a newbies will be overwhelmed.